Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

June 6

John Williams (missionary)

Is John Williams (missionary) officially considered a martyr? He is often called the "martyr missionary of Polynesia" since he was killed by cannibals he was trying to spread Chrisitianity to the New Hebrides.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

What do you think makes someone "officially" a martyr? If such a standard can be established, then the question can be answered, but I doubt that any such official standard exists. There are martyrologies, but they're generally not considered to be exhaustive, so the lack of presence on such a list does not preclude one being a martyr. That said, our article on martyr is worth referencing: the article notes some general characteristics of martyrs, including "the hero foresees action by opponents to harm him or her, because of his or her commitment to the cause" and "opponents kill the hero because of his or her commitment to the cause". In the case of Williams, it's not clear that this narrow definition holds -- was he killed by locals because he was preaching Christ (martyr), or simply because he wasn't a local (murder victim)? On the other hand, you've noted that he's often referred to as a martyr. That's frequently as official as it ever gets, particularly for Protestants. — Lomn 00:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The Catholic Encyclopedia has a long entry on martyrs. Of course, Williams, being a schismatic, may not qualify under their user terms. μηδείς (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, in the Catholic Church, there is a procedure for declaring somebody a martyr, which our article Christian martyrs doesn't really explain, but it starts with a diocesan inquiry according to this article. The Anglicans have a less formal system, but do nominate and recognise martyrs. The more Protestant churches (whom Medeis chooses to call "schismatics", which I hope was a joke) have a different view of saints and martyrs, so although he may be referred to as a martyr, (ie one who dies for their faith), he would not be listed and allocated a commemorative date in the calender, as might be the case if he were a Catholic. Alansplodge (talk) 09:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, from the perspective of the Catholic Encyclopedia (which Medeis was citing in her response), "Protestant" would equate to "schismatic" -- in fact, their article notes that "heretics and schismatics put to death as Christians were denied the title" -- so I don't think there's any need for drama over that one. — Lomn 14:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Hopefully, it was an old edition and things have moved forward a bit now. Alansplodge (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

A bit? Sure. But standard Roman Catholic doctrine still contends that Protestants aren't actually part of the Church, and that Orthodox churches have their own issues as well. Benedict XVI's "The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood" notes: "Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined." That's still a significant distinction from "not heresy", and "schismatic" would certainly still be an applicable term. — Lomn 18:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, in as much as Protestants do not belong to the Catholic Church, which is an organisation, but who really disagrees with that? The word "church" has a lot of specific meanings in Catholic teaching. Protestants who have been validly Baptised are considered Baptised into the mystical body of the Church, but in imperfect Communion with it. See 836-838 in the Catechism: [1] Bear in mind that the Catechism is written to be read by people who study theology, to aid them in writing more accessible books that nonetheless remain orthodox: it often uses quite technical language, which can be misinterpreted (especially if you don't read the whole thing). But I think this section is relatively clear. 86.163.0.30 (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

And just to be extra clear: the words "schismatic" and "heretic" are usually used of groups and individuals who break of. The Catholic Church actually makes a distinction between belonging to a group which split off long before your time, and you yourself splitting off. It's pretty clear that most of those currently in Protestant communities did not split off, themselves. So, Martin Luther was a schismatic, but a modern Lutheran is not necessarily. 86.163.0.30 (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Off topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It reminds me of the joke about the man who went to heaven and asked what was behind the high wall topped with barbed wire. "Shhh" whispered the angel, "it's the Catholics - they think they're the only ones here!" Alansplodge (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC) That's typical British anti-Catholic bigotry: both unfunny and untrue.μηδείς (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC) Oh, it's quite funny in the right context. And it's a good joke for a comedian's repertoire because one can replace "Catholics" with whoever you want to make fun of. In fact, it's really making fun of all religions who teach the "Join us and you will be saved" philosophy. As for being British, I'd need to see a source for that. HiLo48 (talk) 02:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC) Well, there's funny, unreal, funny--and there's funny, real, sad. μηδείς (talk) 03:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC) I certainly didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition! And yes, it's sad that any religion is increasing its following. 03:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC) I don't want the Easter Bunny to die, or Santa Claus to commit suicide. I want my niebles to understand allusions to Jonah, and Job, and Peter and Abel and Moses and Mary and Herod and Christ. My nephew just celebrated his first communion. As a gift I bought him the Lego version of Shelob's lair. Out of his Grandparents and aunts and parents and uncles, two practice Catholicism, and another is an actual believer. I am an atheist, but I embrace cultural catholicism in the same way I embrace Greece and Rome, and am unhappy with stoning and burqahs and iconoclasm and whitewashing and caesaropapism or erastianism. It is a matter of cultural inheritance. Even to laugh at Monty Python requires the existence of the Catholic Church. μηδείς (talk) 03:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The House Of Pride And Other Tales Of Hawaii

Is Jack London's tale "Koolau the Leper" in his book The House Of Pride And Other Tales Of Hawaii a fictional account or semi-fictional account?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

We have an article on the Leper War on Kauaʻi also known as the Koolau Rebellion which mentions Jack London's story. Rmhermen (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes there was a Koolau but the style of London's work makes it's semi-fictionalized.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

June 7

Historical Precedent For A Diplomatic Action

I need a historical precedent or event that would justify a sovereign state telling other countries what actions to take regarding either possible terrorist threats or extraterrestrial contact. I need only one event or action by any countries in the past and I need it ASAP.76.88.39.179 (talk) 05:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The question is not easy to understand but I think you are asking for an example of an ultimatum. There are many examples -- an ultimatum is often the last step before declaring war. For example, the United States issued an ultimatum to Afghanistan demanding that it turn over Osama bin Laden and others after the 9/11 attacks. Does that meet your needs? Looie496 (talk) 05:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage ratios

The impression I get from my local newspaper's "public records" section is that female-female marriages outnumber male-male by about 5:1. Is this typical? --67.160.38.148 (talk) 06:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

This story states that one (somewhat limited) survey of 500 gay couples that were either already married or engaged to be, 75% were female-female. --Jayron32 06:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The statistics from the UK for civil partnerships (not marriage but in most respects the same) show slightly more male: 29,319 male and 22,145 female, total 53,417. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

NZ is somewhat in between these two. According to Civil union in New Zealand and [2] (Excel file), female same sex couples outnumbered males in every year since the introduction until the end of 2012. (However there were more male same sex civil unions than opposite sex civil unions in each year except 2010 where it was equal.) In terms of numbers, slightly under 60% of same sex civil unions were female in the whole period. (Or slightly over 46% of all civil unions.) With the passing of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act 2013, Same-sex marriage in New Zealand will become available on 19th August 2013, so some statistics will be available, next year (probably before), more decent ones perhaps after 2015 (two full years and comparison between the years will give an idea if there was an initial rush).

Note that the differences within NZ between civil unions and marriage is small and only really relate to adoption. And even without a civil union, most of the same protections and requirements apply to a couple living together in a relationship similar to marriage or a civil union after 2 or 3 years. The only big difference is in adoption, where traditionally only married couples were able to adopt as a couple although a recent court case appears to have extended this to a opposite sex couple in a long term defacto relationship [3] but also expressed the opinion that this would most likely not be extended further [4] (suggesting it would not be extended to same sex couples). With the recent law change allowing same sex couples to marry, this would also allow them to adopt as a couple [5] so it's possible adoption would be extended to any couples in a civil union or long term de facto relationship (presuming the adoption act isn't amended or rewritten in the meantime). Non family adoptions are very rare in NZ so it's usually suggested the actual effect is likely to be small [6]. I say all this not to defend the practice but simply because it's usually suggested one of the reasons for the low rates in NZ (our marriage rate is also fairly low) is because many couples don't bother or do so later (meaning presuming there is no difference which seems unlikely but let's assume for simplicity, some couples will simply never marry or enter a civil union because their relationship is already broken up before they reach that stage) as there's less impetus to do so. However Kiwis like to travel so beyond the obvious preference a number of couples may have for marriage due to the history and social implications of the institution and name (which may turn some off but also draw many, particularly same sex couples long denied the right), there is also the advantage in that countries are generally more likely to recognise a marriage than a civil union.

Nil Einne (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles related to the question: Boston marriage, Same-sex marriage. Edison (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Workplace culture and cya

Hi all, I was talking with someone about something a third party had done, and I referred to the actions as just "a case of third party X just covering himself." The person I was talking to baulked rather heavily at what I had said, and told me to be very careful not to say this to him. I was not going to tell the person anyway, for I knew that such a statement was not actually a compliment, but I was surprised at the reaction. It was as if my interlocutor was saying it was outright inflammatory. Is this an acknowledged part of workplace culture, that you have to be extremely careful when referring to someone as "just covering themself"? Would it ordinarily be inflammatory? I had never heard of this before, even though covering oneself is a reality of the modern workplace. Everyone does it, so why do we care? IBE (talk) 06:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

In some circumstances, and if "just covering oneself" is taken to imply avoiding responsibility or covering up a mistake rather than fixing or reporting a problem, it might be explicitly against company policy and a disciplinary offence.

ObPersonal: I used to work in the Pharmacological Industry; personnel were both required and encouraged to report any errors of action or documentation they made because (a) to err is human and nobody never makes a mistake, and (b) a concealed problem or falsified documentation might lead to an incorrectly formulated medicine being created or not withdrawn, which in the worst case could kill someone. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

We have an article on it : Cover your ass. It is something that people do in many types of work: industry, academic research labs, or the military. When a boss wants to skirt the rules, and things go wrong or the practice is exposed, a subordinate may become the "fall guy" or scapegoat. To avoid this, the subordinate may email the boss a "cover your ass memo," in which he documents that his action or inaction was at the boss's direction. E.G., "Per your instructions, I stored the prepared lunches in the refrigerator, even though the cooler is not working properly." or "As you instructed, I shipped the new computers without running the quality control test." or "Per your direction, I will not include the lab rats which died in the totals for the study of the new drug." This takes away an element of deniability that the boss would otherwise enjoy. This is an alternative to refusing to do something without written instructions. Naturally, the boss might prefer that the subordinate not do this, feeling that a truly loyal subordinate would trust the boss, or that a politician's assistant would "take a bullet" for the politician. When things go wrong, and the memo comes out, it could put the bosses job on the line, and some bosses would consider it insubordination, or malicious compliance, or they will reply "Are you insane? I never told you to do x," at which point the subordinate can do the work properly. A coworker in the days before computers said she had a file of such memos going back years, from every job she had ever held. In the era of computers, a different co-worker sent copies of all his emails to his home computer where he archived them on CDs, since on any given day he might be fired and denied access to his office computer account. The COYA memo might not save the employee's job, but he might get the satisfaction of paying the boss or the employer back, as well as avoiding some repercussions of a catastrophe he warned against. Some consider COYA memos as "cowardly, shameful and a sign of distrust." But they help the boss out when he has a little memory failure about how he told you to do the thing that turned out badly. Much the same thing is achieved by emailing a "memo of understanding" to the other parties after a meeting, to clarify and document what was decided, and this also avoids you doing something that was discussed but then not really confirmed as a course of action. More on "cover your ass memos: Donald Rumsfeld, Edison (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

19th century Chinese decline

I have read often that the Manchu Qing Dynasty was the blame for the decline of China during the 19th century specifically focusing on the Manchu aspect of the dynasty. Would China had fair better with a Han-ethnic ruling dynasty? Corruption and stagnation seems to a thing that transcend all the dynasties of China, non-native or native? Also would China had fair better under a dynasty at its peak rather than in decline like the Qing was during this period. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, you mean "Would China have fared better ...?" in your first question.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Meta-discussion about speculation

This calls for "what-if" speculation of a kind we don't do here. Rojomoke (talk) 09:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the hat of of the above user as this is not a speculative query. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I think I agree with Rojomoke here. Can you explain why it's not speculative, Cookatoo? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Close again per Rojomoke, Jack and Myself. We have no references to offer. (The "would have" analysis is also incorrect....) μηδείς (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove hat. Ignorance of a topic is no reason to deny others a chance to provide a meaningful answer. I also have not come across any citable analysis of this question, but there may well be relevant research out there. Several aspects of the question's scope seem like viable research topics. For example, the question seems to ask "to what extent did the Qing dynasty's Manchu customs and practices impact the outcome of China's interaction with the outside world in the 19th century"? The answer might look at the clan-based social organisation, stratification of society along ethnic lines (to the extent this was still an issue in the 19th century), the banner-based military organisation (or lack of organisation thereof), dynastic succession procedures, etc. For another example, the question seems to ask "had China's interactions with the outside world in the 19th century had occurred in the 18th century instead, would the outcome have been different"? The answer might look the personality differences between the Kangxi and Qianlong emperors, the different levels of comparative military power, or the different military alignments at the time.

To put it simply, the question poses hypotheticals of a sort which could support genuine academic research, so it is a legitimate question that is capable of being answered with references. If User:Clio the Muse was still around and if Qing China was an area of her interest, we would've had some very nice answers by now, with footnotes. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

In essence, you're saying we can provide references in which other people speculate to their hearts' content, but we ourselves cannot speculate. Is that how our policy is supposed to work? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

That's my understanding of how the reference desk works. We provide references that have answers: any question that deals with future or hypothetical matters, and many that deal with current matters, necessarily involve a degree of speculation. If we start cutting out any question that requires speculation in answering, the reference desk would be a lot poorer as a resource. If someone asks for next year's forecast world GDP growth, that can be answered very well by linking to the World Bank or IMF's forecast. Similarly, if someone asks for what would have happened had Whitlam not accepted the dismissal, there are also ample sources, both scholarly and primary, to which the questioner could be directed.

In my view, questions are inappropriate only if they cannot reasonably conceivably be answered with a reference. Questions that directly ask the reference deskers for their opinion ("what do you think about...") is probably also not proper, but I think the appropriate response in that case is to (1) tell the questioner we cannot provide opinions, and (2) if possible, give them directions to reliable sources - in other words reading the question as if it was asking for opinions in reliable sources, not those of reference deskers themselves.

In any case, not all of this question was specualtive - at least some of it was quite inoffensive even on a wide interpretation of the speculation rule. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. My concern is that if an OP asked "What would have happened if ...", and we provide references giving people's opinions about what would have happened, we're not really answering the question. Problem is, nobody knows what would have happened if, and all we can ever know is what prominent commentators believe would have happened. We can provide those refs as long as we qualify them acordingly. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The key differences between Manchus and Hans are language and culture. Neither was the likely main cause of the fall of the Qing Dynasty. DOR (HK) (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Charles Tennyson Turner

Why did Charles Tennyson Turner use the surname Turner? Was it to differentiate himself from his brother? RNealK (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

"1 October 1835 ‎(Age 27)‎ Changed his last name to Turner when he inherited the property of his great-uncle, Rev. Samuel Turner of Caistor, Lincolnshire." [7] I'm not sure about this case, but it was sometimes stipulated in the will that the beneficiary had to change their surname in order to perpetuate the family line, albeit in a rather artificial way. Alansplodge (talk) 20:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

For one example of Alansplodge's point about inheritance and name changes, see Benjamin Hallowell Carew. - Karenjc 23:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

And my favourite, Hedworth Lambton, who cheerfully abandoned his aristocratic surname to inherit the brewery fortune of Valerie, Lady Meux, an eccentric heiress and former barmaid, who had taken a shine to him. Alansplodge (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting how many turn up when you start looking. I found the third paragraph Lawson baronets#Lawson, later Howard-Lawson baronets, of Brough Hall (1841; Second creation) fascinating as an example of the survival of this kind of thing into the modern age (and the problems it can produce), and updated it slightly with new sources. - Karenjc 10:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I have added some brief details to the Charles Turner article, based on the ref that I linked above. Alansplodge (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there only one hospital and school in Monaco?

I recently learnt that Monaco has a population of 35000 where it has a area of 2 sq km. Really I am having a tough time understand this. My very basic questions?

• Are there only flats or are there individual houses?
• Is there only one school the Lycee Albert Premier?
• Is there only one hospital the The Princess Grace Hospital Centre?

Help appreciated. Solomon7968 (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

If Monaco blows your mind, consider the Vatican City, which is a sovereign state whose entire land area is 0.44 sq km, which would be a space 22 meters by 20 meters. --Jayron32 21:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you need to check your maths, Jayron. I make it 663 x 663 metres. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course it is. I missed the squared bit. Good catch. Still, that's about the size of a small-to-middle sized suburban subdivision. --Jayron32 00:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey I know vatican city very well but Monaco is strange. It has a gambling industry yet no school or hospital. If a man falls sick where he goes for treatment. To casino! That is what blows my mind. Solomon7968 (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Monaco has several schools - read the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

But what about hospital? Do Monacons never fell ill? Solomon7968 (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

But you've linked to one hospital in your question. There's also the Cardio-thoracic center of Monaco. Btw, the people of Monaco are called Monegasques. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Not monacots? Alansplodge (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

See hospitals in Monaco and schools in Monaco. I think that Monegasques can be hospitalized in France, if needed, and go to French schools too. — AldoSyrt (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

And to answer the original question, there are indeed almost no individual houses in Monaco. The entire principality is built over, and services that cannot be provided within the borders can readily be found in nearby French villages and cities. It's not as if the place is surrounded by a moat or a border wall; one can get in and out with nor formalities (establishing residence there is more complex). --Xuxl (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

@ User:Xuxl Can you elaborate "nor formalities". It is after all a sovereign country. Solomon7968 (talk) 13:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I last visited 20 some years ago, but at the time there was no border crossing, no need to show a passport, just a sign on the road stating you were now in the Principality of Monaco. That was even before the Schengen Agreement, so I doubt it's gotten any harder to enter the country. Se here for details [8] --Xuxl (talk) 13:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Many years ago, when camping near Grasse I chatted to some Americans who had driven into Monaco but found nowhere to park in the entire nation-state, so had driven away again. Therefore I never visited that country. I have visited Andorra, of which the capital is one long shopping street ("venta") and the Vatican, of which much is a museum. 23:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

June 8

Globalization and anti-globalization

Can someone recommend a book arguing in favor of globalization and a book against globalization? Thanks. 74.15.137.246 (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

See Category:Books about globalization.—Wavelength (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Margot Frank's Diary

Why wasn't Anne Frank's sister Margot diary saved as well? At the same time I'm also wondering if Peter Van Pels kept a diary himself and why wasn't his saved as well? Do you think that Mr. Frank would have also published Margot and possible Peter's ones as well if they were saved like Anne's?

Have to say that I always have wondered about Margots, but now I'm thrown Peters into it as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybodymyself (talk • contribs) 05:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Who says they weren't saved? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Margot Frank's article (end of intro). I don't recall Anne's diary mentioning that Peter kept one. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

My guess is that Miep Gies knew about Anne's aspirations to be a writer, so she saved the diary. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Faaa Church from 1852

A Tahitian chief by the name of Tehapai or Maheanu'u a Mai was the first pastor of the Tahitian district of Faaa, appointed in 1852. My questions are was there a church that he was placed in charge of in that district, what was the name of church, where is it now and can someone find me an image of it today. Google searching in French would probably yield more results.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The website of the Papeete diocese [9] lists three catholic parishes in Faa'a. St. Joseph; Puurai Notre Dame de Grâce; and Pamatai Christ Roi. This page [10] claims the first church in the area dates back to 1865, but the three current ones are all modern (1950, 1984 and 1971 respectively). There is also a pentecostal church that seems to be quite ancient. There is a contact link at the diocese's web site; that would likely be the best source for the information you are looking for. --Xuxl (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

LGAs in South Australia

We appear to have a discrepancy between maps of LGAs in South Australia. File:Australia-Map-SA-LGA-Regions.png shows a yellowish blob-shaped LGA along the ocean in the far western part of the state, but it's absent from File:Australian local government areas.png. What is it, and did it recently get established or abolished, or is it the result of a mapmaker's error? Google Maps doesn't help; the area is rural enough that an unenlightened American can't learn anything relevant. Nyttend (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Am I missing something, or are you referring to Yalata, the last item in the list at LGAs in South Australia? /Coffeeshivers (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

That's what it is, but the question remains: Why does it not appear on the second map Nyttend mentioned? That map was made from ABS data, so that's a bit of a puzzle. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I looked at all of the maps, but since File:Australia-Map-SA-AC-Yalata.png highlights a spot in the southeast, I assumed that Yalata was in the southeast. I didn't look at the "Region" column, so I didn't notice that "Outback" was its region. The bit about recent establishment or disestablishment was because the two maps were uploaded 2½ years apart, making me wonder if things had changed during that period, but now I see that Yalata was established in 1994. Thank you! Nyttend (talk) 22:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible that the overall map is generally in error for some reason? It's missing a small rectangular exclave in the large middle-western LGA, and a small enclave\LGA near the eastern border of the state, as well. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Sportspeople without coach

Are there sportspeople that achieved notable successes without a coach?--93.174.25.12 (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

If you go back far enough in time, say before the mid 20th century, the majority of individual sports people tended to have no coach. The idea of a personal coach dictating an athlete's every move is a relatively modern one. HiLo48 (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Deriving, at least in part, from self-taught athletes who kept their careers going by becoming coaches or at least mentors. One example would be Rogers Hornsby, who mentored other great hitters such as Ted Williams. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Want to know about Nationalism

Hai Sir,

I Just want a article about labourism and which i want for a project work i searched in wikipedia about labourism but i only got about labour movement,labour economics,etc and all...but i need the exact about labourism. so i kindly request you to provide it to me as soon as possible.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.252.10.164 (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

In which country are you looking for, and what information do you seek on "labourism"? --Jayron32 17:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster says labourism is a synonym for the politics of a Labour Party [11] while other google hits seem to define it as something like "dominance of the workers" - apparently in the context of the last century. [12] [13] [14] Is there some modern term that fits this definition and that we do have an article on? Best I can find are List of social democratic parties, Labour Party and Social democracy - would these be more on track? 184.147.118.213 (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Labourism refers to the instinctive ideology of the three major parties of labour in the Anglosphere: the Australian Labor Party the New Zealand Labour Party and the Labour Party (UK). These parties have a poorly developed ideology, shared with the affiliated and related unions of their countries, that is based in an attempt to take the parliamentary state apparatus and then use them to further develop labour (ie: actual worker)'s interests. Labourism is sometimes revolutionary, sometimes centrist, sometimes hard right wing. It lies between "progressivism" and "social democracy", but lacks the links to "liberalism" and "socialism or Marxism" respectively. If you could clarify which labourism, UK, Au or NZ you're interested in, we could better answer. Each has had a semi-independent trajectory. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Your header mentions Nationalism, but your question is about labour politics. Can you explain why, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

They could be asking after the links between labourism and nationalism, such as the Australian settlement hypothesis; basically a kind of "national level Fordism" claim. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Want to know about labourism (again)

Hai Sir,

I Just want a article about labourism and which i want for a project work i searched in wikipedia about labourism but i only got about labour movement,labour economics,etc and all...but i need the exact about labourism. so i kindly request you to provide it to me as soon as possible.and also i want it in about 5-10 paragraph. and also is it possible to get about labourism in europe,Britain,america,india .if anyone can. then please provide it to me fast....

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.252.12.158 (talk) 14:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'Labourism'? As far as I'm aware, the term simply means 'the ideology of the Labour movement', which you have already looked at. If you intend something different you will have to explain what it is. And no, we don't give '5-10 paragraph' answers on demand - we don't do people's homework for them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

June 9

American virtuosity

What is Stanley Crouch referring to at 35:55 when he speaks about American virtuosity being based on making something difficult seem easy? Mention is made of Lincoln Kirstein but a quick search doesn't trace the idea back to him. Bus stop (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to tell exactly, because it isn't a direct quote, but it appears here that Kirstein said such a thing about ballet dancers under the direction of George Balanchine, per this document. I'm digging for other sources of the quote, however. --Jayron32 04:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is pretty close: "Most important, they must make these very difficult things look beautiful and easy",[15] and "Once he had trained dancers who could perform the ballets in his head, he created a faster, more angular way of dancing -- to match the style of New York. He invented a new kind of plotless ballet -- like the modernists who were painting abstract pictures. Like many immigrants to America, he combined the traditions of his past with the vital spirit he found in his adopted country."[16] Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 05:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

And then there is Piet Hein's Grook:

To make your way in learning

When other roads are barred

Take something very easy

And make it very hard.

Bielle (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I wasn't aware of Piet Hein or the literary form Grook. Here is one I like:

A MAXIM FOR VIKINGS

Here is a fact

that should help you fight

a bit longer:

Things that don't act-

ually kill you outright

make you stronger.[17] Bus stop (talk) 21:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I like grooks. Don't I, Bielle. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Box with diagonal line = cavalry

Why is a box with a diagonal line typically used to represent cavalry in diagrams of battles? Example. Google mentions this phenomenon in many places, but always (1) referring to it as a common thing, or (2) talking about a line of cavalry troopers advancing in a diagonal direction. Nyttend (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Cavalry strap: NATO_Military_Symbols_for_Land_Based_Systems#History. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Any connection to the way a knight moves on a chessboard? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The article linked by Fifelfoo above says that it was "inspired by the cavalry sabre strap", presumably meaning a crossbelt. In chess, the bishop moves diagonally; a knight moves two spaces and then one at a right angle, or one space and two at a right angle. "The complete move therefore looks like the letter L." Alansplodge (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a much older convention than the 1984 date mentioned in the NATO Military Symbols article; this 1912 map of The Battle of Waterloo and this 1828 map of the Battle of Talevera both use it. Alansplodge (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Finally, I found this 1763 map of the Seige of Havana which shows the same symbol, but whether it actually represents cavalry or other troops is unclear. Alansplodge (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Alansplodge, those maps are a very cool addition to the answer!184.147.118.213 (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I suspect the origins are lost in the mists of time. This article says that the symbols originated "throughout Western militaries during the decades after Waterloo", although the example that I found (above) predates that by half a century. Alansplodge (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I have now added a paragraph to the NATO Military Symbols page, in line with the source linked above. Alansplodge (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with 184.147.118.213: this was a really helpful series of maps, so thanks a lot! I had already guessed that "its origins are murky" might be the answer, but I had no clue if that were the case. Nyttend (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

June 10

Causes of death

Virtually every cause of death, from warfare to accidents to old age, preferentially kills males. What are the most significant causes of death that preferentially kill females? Am I correct in suspecting that breast cancer is the only one, since childbirth is extremely safe in the modern world? --50.125.67.43 (talk) 05:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

A google search for you answer found some good info on the WHO website. Hot Stop 05:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Childbirth will still kill more females than it will males, regardless of how few in absolute numbers so die, for obvious reasons. --Jayron32 05:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

"...childbirth is extremely safe in the modern world". Maybe in your country, but certainly not globally. The World Health Organization estimates that there are 529,000 deaths from complications related to pregnancy or childbirth every year. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

500K deaths out of 130 million births, or 0.4%. By contrast, death rates in antiquity were around 3%. --50.125.67.43 (talk) 05:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

In looking for exceptions to the assertion that "Virtually every cause of death preferentially kills males" we should first omit causes of death that are gender specific. For example... no man will ever die of Ovarian cancer and no woman will ever die of Prostate cancer, since men don't have ovaries and women don't have a prostate. Blueboar (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Because there are more men than women? --TammyMoet (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by why you would include child birth but exclude ovarian and prostate cancers. But anyway, I suspect HIV is one in some cases. I had a brief look at [18] and although I'm a bit tired to understand it, I believe it suggests that the the probability of dying from HIV is similar for males and females in a number of African countries (but I don't think they were looking for small differences). However in some (or many?) African countries, e.g. HIV/AIDS in South Africa, the prevalance is higher among females. So I wonder if the mortality is higher also. A perhaps more interesting point raised by that paper. In many countries List of countries by life expectancy, the life expectancty at birth (or say 1 year old) is at least slightly higher for females than for males. As shown by the earlier paper, this probably holds true even in those countries significantly affected by HIV (well the overall mortality rates at 20-45 are higher for males than for females). However there are clear differences in mortality patterns for females and males from HIV with females generally dying at a much younger age. This is likely, and the paper suggests also, because of the difference in ages for when the person first becomes HIV positive. This would suggest the life expectancy lost by females from HIV may be greater. (There are obviously many possible confounding factors here, e.g. the people more likely to contract HIV may have different life expectancy patterns between females and makes.) The paper itself only seems to consider the combined loss. Back to the point I hinted at earlier, as people always say, currently the mortality rate is always 100% for both males and females so any female is eventually going to have some cause of death, so considering the loss of life expectancty particularly for something with such wildly different mortality rates may be worth considering. BTW, in some countries, female Infanticide is likely more common than male (to be clear, I'm using the term as used in our article and chose it because it was the article name). Nil Einne (talk) 02:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

You're right, I should not have included childbirth. Thanks for your answer! (I also didn't know the word "infanticide" was controversial. Is there some alternative I'm not aware of?) --50.125.67.43 (talk) 05:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not correct to say that the current mortality rate of AIDS is 100%. Lots of people with AIDS die of causes unrelated to AIDS. If two pedestrians with AIDS get struck by a truck and die, the mortality rate for walking is 100%, and 0% for AIDS. Mortality rates depend on the population being studied. One study of HIV infected people over age 60 found that about 50% of those who died, died of causes other than AIDS. [19] - Nunh-huh 11:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Contacting university lecturers

I've been noticing from looking through university websites that the lecturers' contact details are rarely published online. Is this standard practice? Most places seem to require the contact to be through the office. Or am I not looking hard enough? IBE (talk) 06:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Email addresses online are pretty standard in the Australian system. If administrative staff are acting as gatekeepers, politeness and an on topic reason to contact an academic usually helps. I am assuming here you're in a system where "Lecturer" is the generic job description for mixed research/teaching staff. In many systems there's an expectation that teaching only staff are not public figures in the way that mixed teaching-research staff (even if they're 90% teaching) are public figures. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm in the UK and my university publishes email addresses and phone numbers for academic staff. Here is my departmental staff page. User:SamUK 11:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Charlemagne's hair length

Was Charlemagne's hair long or short?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 07:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Coins provide excellent contemporary portraiture, although flattery and other symbolism need to be borne in mind. See numismatics. You also have to watch out for later copies of well-regarded coins of earlier eras. Google has a number of images of Charlemagne coins. Looks like his hair was short, at least at some point(s) in his reign. But again, these present snapshots of time. Perhaps he grew his hair long from time to time? We can't be sure, really. --Dweller (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I figured Einhard would have written about this, but he only says that Charlemagne's hair was "fair", not how long it was. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

This source has interesting commentary on this subject, though I can't assess its reliability. Marco polo (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

My edition of Einhard says of Charlemagne's hair that it was "a fine head of hair" (III:22). In addition, there is the account of Notker the Stammerer. It's apparent from the way he talks about another person that having extremely short hair ("as if it had been turned on a lathe"!) was not the done thing (I:32) --Dweller (talk) 09:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Charlemagne and Pippin the Hunchback: 10th century copy of a lost original, which was made back between 829 and 836

This image shows him with short hair (I think the yellow behind his head is part of his head dress), as do other 9th century images.[20] Alansplodge (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyright on a film made from a biography

A very simple question:

• Why did Steven Spielberg made the Lincoln (2012 film) from the 2005 copyrighted book Team of Rivals instead of choosing a copyright expired biography. Solomon7968 07:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Because it's a better biography than the old ones, presumably. I don't think paying for the rights to film a book is too much of an issue for Spielberg. --Viennese Waltz 08:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Just do not get it. Every reasonable educated man knows about the life of Lincoln (not necessary fine details). So I will expect Steven Spielberg has a reasonable scholarship of Lincoln. He could have makeout the fine details by reading any biography. (After all lincoln died 150 years ago). So why did he chose a copyrighted work? And the wikipedia entry says Spielberg brought the film rights before the book was written! Solomon7968 08:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with any of these works, so this answer is necessarily generic. However: (1) Scholarship moves on; new documents emerge and old ones are reanalysed, new questions are asked (Lincoln's sexuality is certainly a topic of recent debate that would not be adequately addressed in a copyright-expired work); and (2) being able to work with a living biographer means that a film-maker can ask for clarification, have access to sources and interpretations that are only partially reflected in the published book, and so on. If you think that just because a subject is well-known and long-dead, their biography is (so to speak) a closed book, then you are making a grave error. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Lincoln's sexuality is a total news to me. Any references? Solomon7968 09:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

See Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that most of the "reasonable educated" adults I know (whether male or female) know little more about Abraham Lincoln than his appearance, job title and perhaps a vague link to the American Civil War and/or slavery. Those that do know considerably more than that are probably dominated by those that have seen the film ... or are Americans. --Dweller (talk) 10:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

@User:Dweller I am an Indian, by reasonable I mean that he abolished slavery, was president during the Civil war and was assasinated. Everyone should know that inspite of he or she is American or not. It is not bad to have knowledge of other cultures. Solomon7968 11:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyright doesn't protect facts (or ideas), only expression. Whether you make a factual biopic from one book or another really doesn't matter unless, perhaps, you are completely slavishly translating the book into a film medium. So whether he says the movie is adapted from one book or another doesn't really matter from a copyright perspective, and paying the writer is good form regardless of copyright issues. And who would want to make a factual movie from an 80 year old book? It would not reflect current scholarship and would sound ridiculous. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to elaborate a bit on, and provide links to, PalaceGuard's answer: see idea expression divide. The copyright applies only to the expression not the idea: that means that the copyright on the book applies only to direct copies of the book, not to other expressions of the ideas contained within the book. Now, IANAL, even a copyright lawyer, but my understanding the existence of a copyright on the book doesn't disallow someone from making a derivative work of it. The new work would have the dual copyrights, the original copyright to the book would still apply, and the new creative work added to the original would also have its own copyright. Furthermore, why wouldn't Spielberg use a well written, well known biography of Abraham Lincoln to tell his story? It provides a nice tie-in to an already well-known work, and from a marketing perspective, the book and film each tying to each other increases sales of both: the movie will get extra viewers among those that already know the book, and the book will generate additional sales from people who may not have read it but learned of it through the connection to the movie. Win-win! --Jayron32 13:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

---

By the way, several years before the Lincoln movie, "Team of Rivals" was known to be an influence on Obama including Hilary Clinton in his cabinet, and was mentioned in a "Simpsons" episode, so it's a fairly well-known book in its own way... AnonMoos (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Revoke of Richard Nixons resignation

Dear everybody. Could Richard Nixon revoke his resignation as President, before the term of office he has been elected to expired (until January 20, 1977). He was never convicted in an impeachment, so he might take back his resignation in 1975 and point out that he is the person who has been elected president in the last election. Is such a scenario conceivable? Had Gerald Ford stepped again into the vice-presidency; or is a Vice President who succeeds the presidency irrevocably president without being elected? (I know it's a very difficult question). --91.103.112.54 (talk) 08:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

President of the United States#Vacancy or disability says Nixon resigned in an appropriate way and Vice President of the United States#Succession and the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, confirmed at Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution#Section 1: Presidential succession, suggests Ford would have immediately succeeded to the full Presidential office Thincat (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The actual question is, whether he could revoke the resignation after he left office. Let's say in 1975, when is second term would not have been expired. --91.103.112.54 (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Then the answer is, no. Under what authority could he possible have done so? You resign, you resign. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I can imagine a scenario where he announced on 7 August that he was going to resign with effect from noon on 9 August, but after a good night's sleep he woke up on 8 August and said "No, dammit, I'm gonna stay and fight this thing", and then announced he'd changed his mind and would be staying put and the Watergate enquiry would have to proceed to finality. That is, he withdrew the resignation before it was due to take effect (the resignatius interruptus scenario). But once it had already taken effect, and even before Ford had been sworn in, Nixon had ceased to be President. He then had no more claim to the U.S. presidency than Adolf Hitler had. With the exception that he might have been able to run again in 1976, whereas Hitler could not have, not even if he were still alive. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

No, he couldn't have run in '76, because he had been elected twice. Well, technically, he could have run (there are often minor candidates on the ballots of one or more states who don't meet the eligibility requirements), but he couldn't have been elected. --Trovatore (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The President of Malawi denounced her supposed resignation letter as a forgery. In a time of crisis, it seems possible that someone might forge a US President's letter of resignation (many Presidential signatures were done with the Autopen, but not Nixon's resignation letter), and then the Secretary of State could accept it as official, possibly after talking to the President to confirm it, and the Vice President could be sworn in. A President might also claim that it was signed under duress (someone was twisting his other arm or waterboarding him or threatening to harm his family member). It is also conceivable that a President might resign in protest and the Secretary of State might be slow to open and accept the resignation, allowing time for negotiation and reconsideration. But I have not seen any scenario discussed wherein he could submit an actual resignation, then change his mind later. If he resigned in his first term, he could always run for a second term. Edison (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Even if it were possible for Nixon to have changed his mind after resigning, it's important to remember that the reason he resigned is that he was in process of being impeached, and almost certainly would have been convicted by the Senate. So if he un-resigned, he would have been kicked out permanently anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Ancient Somali script

Hello,

are there any pictures of the Ancient Somali script?

Greetings HeliosX (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, this comes high up on a Bing search of "Somali ancient script". {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Does (Somali ancient script) actually exist? Should that article be merged with Wadaad's writing (which has an image)? Because:

• All our articles (Somali ancient script, Somali language, Somali) source a claim that there are undeciphered rock writings from Somalia (dating from before the arrival of Arabic scripts) to an 1878 Royal Society report which, as far as I can tell from reading it online [21] mentions inscriptions in only two sentences: (p447) "I also discovered ancient ruins and rock-inscriptions both in pictures and characters. These have hitherto not been deciphered." I think it's a bit of a stretch we are using that as a source to claim, 135 years later, that there is an undeciphered Somali script.
• This paper by someone at the Uni of Turin (prof or student I know not) claims there was no indigenous writing in the Somalia region until Arabic script arrived (i.e. Wadaad's writing).

Any thoughts? I'm off to make the claims in the articles at least match the source, but am not sure enough to merge the articles. 184.147.118.213 (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Book of John

Is there a reason why the book of John in the Bible is the most recommended of all the gospels by Christians, even though it is not part of the synoptic gospels? Why not recommend the New Oxford Annotated Bible of the NRSV and recommend reading from Genesis to Revelation, along with the oral Torah or the sacred tradition of the Roman Catholic church? Sneazy (talk) 14:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

First of all, it doesn't seem obvious at all from a Christian perspective that a synoptic gospel should be preferred, but mostly it probably has to do with the motivation John gives for writing his gospel (John 20:31): "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.". Regarding the second part of your question, reading the entire Bible costs a lot of time, and Christianity does not recognize any 'Oral Torah'. The sacred tradition of the Catholic Church, apart from it being quite extensive and not clearly defined, is of course rejected by both Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox alike. I think most evangelists, or people handing out John's gospel are evangelicals, not Roman Catholics. - Lindert (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I question whether the book of John actually is "the most recommended". Recommended by whom... and for what? Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It's easier to track the source of an in-person conversation than an Internet conversation. Sometimes, a random person on the Internet can leave a note, recommending the book of John with little explanation. Sneazy (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You have basically answered your own question with "a random person on the internet"--i.e., an evangelical by style. What do you mean by recommending the "sacred tradition of the Roman Catholic church"? I am not aware of any such book. Do you mean a catechism? μηδείς (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, the question is a bit complex, and requires one to very carefully define what you are looking for. Among all of the gospels, Mark is the most translated, thus is available in the most languages, per this. This is likely because it is the first and shortest of the gospels. Jesus (1979 film) is a filmed version of the Gospel of Luke, and has been translated into numerous languages, a case could be made that through the Jesus Film Project it is possible that more people are exposed to the Gospel of Luke than to any other Gospel, if they are only exposed to one. As far as why you Sneazy have the impression that John is the most recommended Gospel to read, no one can answer that; there are no studies as to what people recommend you to read; your question as written is unanswerable, since it is based on your perceptions based on your own experiences. One thing to consider, however, as to why people may recommend John over any of the synoptic Gospels is that the synoptic gospels are more narrative in nature, focusing on the life and acts of Jesus, whereas John spends more of its text on the his philosophy and on his essential nature (of course, there are all aspects in all Gospels, but we're talking general trends here). See Gospel of John#Characteristics of the Gospel of John, which notes the differences in terms of tone and theme between John and the other gospels. Which is to say, we cannot say why someone recommends that you would read John over any other Gospel, but if they were recommending something about John which was different from the others, you can read about those difference there. Of course, the best thing for you to do, Sneazy, is to just read the four Gospels yourself and come to your own opinions as to the matter. They're really not all that long. --Jayron32 18:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Jayron about Mark's Gospel, and I've often heard Christians recommending it, especially when studying with non-Christians, because of its brevity. I have read that John gives a more intimate portrayal of Jesus, and when someone is doing a dramatisation of the life of Christ, he is very thankful for those parts which are based on the Fourth Gospel, since his task is made so much easier. Sorry but can't remember where I read it. IBE (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

John's the most theological gospel though, the one that makes the big claims. There's a reason John 3:16 is quoted on posters at sports events. The other gospels don't make such a claim. μηδείς (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

More than any other Gospel, John spends much of its text on what is called Christology, that is the essential nature of Christ. Even moreso than John 3:16 (which is often quoted for the essence of why Christians are Christians), are sections like John 1, which discuss the relationship of a) God b) Christ and c) the "Word" (see Logos (Christianity)). Some of John can get quite esoteric like this, whereas the synoptic gospels are a much more straightforward narrative of the life and works of Jesus. In John, Jesus teaches through allegory and discourses, where as the synoptic Gospels show Jesus teaching mainly through parables, which often confuse the masses, but which he later explains in detail to his followers. --Jayron32 19:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The perception of John as the most recommended Gospel may be OR, but I believe it is correct. The typical explanation I've been given is the Christology answer Jayron mentioned. John is the only Gospel to explicitly identify Jesus as an incarnation, in some sense, of God, and is the Gospel to most clearly convey the idea of Christ's death as a form of sacrifice. I disagree with Lindert that the text's "mission statement" (for lack of a better term) is the reason. In fact, Luke gives a similar statement to that effect at the very start ("Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the Word, I too decided... to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed."). Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

A photo of Aino Kuusinen , please !

Hello, Learned Ones ! I'm about to edit Aino Kuusinen (1886-1970, wife of Otto Kuusinen), but I found few sources, & particularly no photo of that spy who was said to be beautiful enough. Ever seen her photo before ? & where ? Thanks beforehand for your links . Truly yours, Arapaima (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Pic on this page might be the couple? I don't read Finnish, so I don't know if it's public domain. 184.147.118.213 (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot "184.147.118.213". But [22] is commercially advertizing for her autobiography Juamala syökse enkelinä, the finnish edition of God stürtz seine Engel (God hurls down his angels), & furthermore shows only a semi-masked portrait of Aino Kuusinen. Hasn't somebody got a better photo ? Thanks beforehand for your help, ô Learned Ones Arapaima (talk) 07:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think they are better, but see page 11 of this pdf file. Oda Mari (talk) 09:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Economics

What type of demand curve is represented in the article from the Houston Chronicle from June 7, 2013 "You're Wrong About Apple's Affordable iPhone"? HELP Puhlease!!! I need this for my Economics class TODAY!! THANK you!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrookeTaylore (talk • contribs) 19:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Up at the top, it says "We don't do your homework for you, though we’ll help you past the stuck point." Here is our article on demand curves, I'm hope your text book or lecture notes have more information. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

St. Edward's Crown

replica of the crown

Do we know what the original St Edward's Crown looked like? Is it the crown featured in Elizabeth I's coronation portrait? Also, after the restoration did they give a reason why they opted for such a, frankly, boring and plain design? To me the Imperial State Crown is far more impressive and the St. Edward's crown is just an ugly, bulky mess, so I assume here's an official reason for keeping it because it looks like something you can buy in any tourist shop. --Andrew 21:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thankfully, you weren't consulted when whoever gets to make these decisions makes them. --Jayron32 00:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

For convenience, this is about St Edward's Crown. Looie496 (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Tudor Political Culture edited by Dale Hoak says that "St Edward's crown was considered to be a holy relic - it was kept and revered as such with other relics at St Edward's". According to our article, there is some uncertainty about whether the original St Edward's Crown was among the jewel's that King John dropped in The Wash; but we never let the truth stand in the way of a good legend. From memory, Oliver Cromwell had the bits broken up and sold. At the Restoration, most of the bits were returned to the new king by their new owners, either out loyalty our political prudence. I'll look for a source. Alansplodge (talk) 07:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

June 11

Is Wikipedia the only non-commercial website in Top 100 most popular websites?

Looking at List of most popular websites, this seems to be the case. The only website whose status is disputed is The Pirate Bay. Everything else that I thought may not be commercial that I checked is commercial (IMDb, BBC, The Huffington Post). So, am I right to conclude that Wikipedia is the only non-commercial (non-profit) site in the Top 100 most popular Internet sites? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the BBC non-profit since it's publicly owned. Hot Stop 02:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought so, but see BBC#Commercial_activities. Also, the article uses infobox company, and all companies are for-profit by default. (if not, we should add commercial= parameter to Template:Infobox company). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem here is in understanding the word "commercial". The BBC is regarded in the UK as providing the opposite of "commercial" television/radio. It is a publicly-owned body, with no shareholders, that gains the lion's share of its income from the government via the license fee. As you can see from BBC#Revenue, of the BBC's 2011/12 income figures, c.£3.8bn came in from the license fee and other government sources and less than £0.5bn came in through means that could in any way be regarded as commercial. In the UK, many charities (most of the large ones) have commercial operations to support themselves, but having these kind of commercial activities does not make an organisation "commercial" ... regardless of what kind of infobox Wikipedia uses ;-) ! To most British people, the BBC would not be regarded as "commercial" for these reasons, but because the term can be understood in different ways, it is possible to perceive it as such, but it doesn't really hold water. --Dweller (talk) 09:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

And in answer to Piotrus, about companies - in UK law, most charities of any significant size are companies. Specifically, they are 'companies limited by guarantee and not having share capital', but they're still companies; they register both with Companies House and with the Charity Commission. The amounts to, to the best of my knowledge, several million UK-registered companies. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Several million Alex? Seriously? Last I knew there were less than 180,000 registered charities in England and Wales (Scotland and Northern Ireland have a different system). And they may be companies limited by guarantee, but they may also be Charitable Incorporated Organisations, or co-operatives, or unincorporated associations, or partnerships, or charitable trusts. I'll try and get a reference for the numbers. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC) According to this (which I believe to be the most authoritative site there is), there are approximately 160,000 charities in England and Wales. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Clearly 'the best of my knowledge' wasn't very good! Thanks for the source. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Famous artist/writer who criticized his peers about their need to have an opinion of every question of our time, and to tell the world about it

It's probably a long shot, but I believe the person was either from France or Spain/Portugal (probably this) Basically, when asked about his - objectively worthless - opinion on a political affair, he responded that he was sorry that he didn't have any, as a way to mock his politically-engaged peers, that felt the need to involve themselves in subjects in which they had no relevant expertise. Eisenikov (talk) 03:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Could it have been Picasso? According to Wikiquote, he was reported in the New York Times to have said of the 1969 moon landing: "It means nothing to me. I have no opinion about it, and I don't care." - Karenjc 08:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Interception in national airspace for extradition

Can a country which has an extradition agreement with some other country, send fighter jets or whatever to intercept in its own airspace the aircraft flying to political asylum in another country? 93.174.25.12 (talk) 09:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The leaders of a sovereign country can order anything that is technically feasible within their own airspace. Whether they can do so legally depends on the laws and the rule of law within that country. Whether they would order an action sanctioned by law in their country is a political question that depends on political constraints within that country. Did you have a specific jurisdiction in mind? Marco polo (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I just wonder whether the aircraft crew flying to poltical asylum should consider that and dodge the airspaces of such countries (fortunately didn't happen to me, so I'm not seeking a legal advice). 93.174.25.12 (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Extradition is a legal process that, in most jurisdictions, takes some time (at least weeks, sometimes years) before it can result in a person's forced transfer to the country that initiated the process. Again, jurisdictions differ, but normally a country seeking extradition sends a request for extradition to the country where the suspect is believed to be. Often, this request will have to go through an administrative procedure (lasting hours or days) in the country receiving the request to determine whether the request meets the receiving country's grounds for arrest. If it does, the suspect is arrested. Then, the suspect goes through a legal process similar to a trial to determine whether the person meets grounds in the receiving country for extradition. Presumably, arrest could happen by means of aircraft interception, but that could only happen if 1) the country issuing the extradition request could predict the suspect's flight path and send notice to the country whose air space the flight path crossed, and 2) the country receiving the request could process it and launch aircraft quickly enough to intercept the flight before it left that country's airspace. So, the answer is, yes, it is theoretically possible that such an interception could take place, but hard to imagine in practice in most cases. The only obvious exception would be if the country receiving the extradition request were an autocratic client state of the one issuing the request, such that authorities in the country issuing the request only had to phone up the office of the client state's dictator and ask him to launch aircraft on short notice, which he could do, since dictators typically don't quibble over the rule of law. For example, if China wished to intercept a flight crossing North Korea, it wouldn't be hard to imagine North Korea quickly intercepting the flight. The kind of action that you describe might also be possible if the interception were requested of an ally on military (rather than criminal) grounds. For example, if, say, Britain had just suffered a military attack and knew that the attackers were about to fly over the United States, Britain might be able to ask the United States to intercept the aircraft on short notice, but that would be a case of military assistance rather than extradition. Marco polo (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

If you intercept in your own airspace, it's not an extradition anymore. Every state has complete and exclusive sovereignty over airspace above its territory and it may require any aircraft to make a landing. OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Albert VII, Archduke of Austria and Isabella Clara Eugenia

Did Albert VII, Archduke of Austria and Isabella Clara Eugenia have three children: Philip, Albert, Anna Mauritia, who died young? Or are the names based on a faulty genealogical source?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Not the answer, but more info to help searchers. The German wikipedia gives some dates: Archduke Philip born 21 October 1605, Archduke Albert born 21 January 1607, Archduchess Anna Mauritia undated. It adds that according to contemporary reports (no citation given), the early death of the children led to Albert VII and Isabella Clara Eugenia stopping sleeping with each other. 184.147.118.213 (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

How many knighted/damed yearly in Britain?

About how many people on average are knighted/damed yearly in Britain at any level? Our article doesn't say and the internet ask a question fora are dreadful on this. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• No general figures to hand, but some examples: in 2011, the last "normal" year (no dissolution or jubilee honours), there were 22 knights bachelor, eight KCB, five K/DCMG, 18 K/DBE, three GBE, and four KCVO - so sixty in all. About five or ten people who already had knighthoods of some form got "better" ones; I haven't included them in the above list. Conversely, though, in 1991 it was a total of almost a hundred not counting the "better" knighthoods. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I just want a round figure. Do the numbers include the women as well? μηδείς (talk) 00:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Are they damed if they do? Or, then again, are they damed if they don't? --Trovatore (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

14 & 18 party alliance in Bangladesh

Who are the 14 party alliance and who are 18 party alliance and who are the parties involved in each alliance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.153.198 (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

A start: Five of the 14 party alliance members are listed in Grand Alliance (Bangladesh). All of the 18 party alliance members are listed in 18 Party Alliance. 184.147.118.213 (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Why are people buying books that are free?

Quoting the news report

"BIG brother is watching - sales of George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984 have skyrocketed in the wake of revelations of US government surveillance.

The centennial edition of the novel surged 7005 per cent on Amazon, according to the online retailer's Mover and Shakers in Books page that monitors biggest gainers in sales rank compared to 24 hours ago."

But why are people paying money for a book that is out of Copyright in Australia? Look here http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100021.txt

It seems to be counter intuitive. 202.177.218.59 (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

They want to read an actual book, not the pale simulacrum that goes by the name "e-book". - Nunh-huh 23:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

[AFTER EDIT CONFLICT] Can people everywhere in the world download that from Project Gutenberg? Anyway, there would be multiple parts to the answer to your question. Reading a .txt file such as the one you pointed us to is not as pleasant an experience as sitting back with a nicely bound book. And what does one do with the .txt file? Just read it off a screen? Print it, on masses of A4 or Letter size sheets. That costs money, and again, will not be as nice as a properly bound book to read in bed. Some will simply want a special edition. It's a fashion thing. And some won't know about the free Gutenberg version. HiLo48 (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above; also note that Orwell is not out of copyright in any country in the EU and US, and in the many other countries which apply copyright for the life of the author + 70 years (see List of countries' copyright lengths). Orwell will be in copyright in these countries until 31 December 2020. The Orwell estate does enforce the copyright in the UK. And I would have thought most people seeking a copy of a work by Orwell are unaware that he is out of copyright in some countries. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not in Australia but I was able to view the whole book. I wonder how that works regarding copyright law. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Now that I look that site again, I wonder if Australia copyright laws are much more liberal than elsewhere. Gutenberg Australia has a trove of relatively recent works. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

In many places you can buy the real book used for something like $1 - $1.5. Would you really want to read that in your electronic device of choice or to have a book that won't get stolen, doesn't run out of battery, doesn't break apart and can be carried everywhere? OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• I just spent $170 to buy Australian Languages, Bowern & Koch, ed., even though Claire Bowern was kind enough to email a pdf of the text. Beats reading off you iPhone. μηδείς (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Kamehameha III's Funeral

Who is the author of this account of Kamehameha III's funeral? Here.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

S.C. Damon - the signature is at the end of the letter on page 253. 184.147.118.213 (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I seriously need to read more into these. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)